Yesterday, the Eurovision Song Contest scored two much-needed wins. But there was one idea on the minds of everyone involved:
“[We’ve] agreed to place the original premise of the festival back at the centre.” – Jet de Ranitz, Executive Board Chair, NPO
“Today, they have given us sufficient guarantees to indicate that a change is underway within the EBU, and that we can return to the original values of the Song Contest.” – Spokesperson for VRT
It’s even what one of the EBU’s most senior executives thinks:
“The value of the Song Contest hasn’t changed, but it is back at the centre today. While perhaps undercut in recent years, it is a momentous event.” – Jean Philip de Tender, Deputy Director-General, Strategy Services & Media, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
So it must be true – everything’s back to the way it was. Eurovision is returning to its core values, a target its organisers admit they weren’t quite hitting. But no more.
The last few years? Just a dream. Things are normal now.
What does normal even mean anymore?
The Boycott End, What Replaces It?
For something like the Eurovision Song Contest, the idea of normalcy is so remote as to be rendered moot. This is a Contest that thrives on chaos, revels in randomness, and has a remarkable ability to reinvent itself. That’s just as true for the performances we see on stage as the politics we don’t see going on behind it.
What’s normal for the Contest, then, shifts and floats with the times. A decade ago, Eurovision could put on an interval act like ‘The Grey People’, a beautifully choreographed depiction of the European migrant crisis of the time, without so much as a batted eyelid. Could you imagine such a performance on the stage in Basel or Vienna?
For the last year, what’s defined Eurovision has been a contentious and complex negotiation. On December 4, 2025, the members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) passed new voting rules by a majority, with the understanding that passing those rules would prevent a vote on Israel’s participation at the Contest. As soon as the motion was passed, five broadcasters immediately withdrew in unison. That Furious Five – Iceland’s RÚV, Ireland’s RTÉ, Slovenia’s RTV SLO, Spain’s RTVE and the Netherlands’ AVROTROS – were out until further notice.
Yesterday, that united front came to an abrupt end.
Although AVROTROS made it clear that they wouldn’t be returning to Eurovision in 2027, that didn’t have to mean the end of their nation’s road to the Contest. By virtue of the Dutch public media system, in which several broadcasters exist as part of the NPO group, the rights reverted back to the group itself.
And, after discussions, the NPO itself has agreed to compete, claiming it’ll put a team together to organise the entry from among its members. The NOS, the biggest TV station in the group, will be broadcasting the show and providing commentary. They say that it falls under their “statutory duty to report on major international events”. Eurovision’s new normal is that it’s a news story all by itself.
Half an hour later, and not by accident, came a second announcement. Neighbours Belgium and their Flemish broadcaster, VRT, had been showing signs of joining the boycott for months. They aired a declaration of support for Palestine seconds before the Contest began in 2026. They publicly called on the EBU to release transparent voting data – and released theirs. And, weeks ago, they revealed they hadn’t made a final decision on competing at all next year.
But VRT, like their Dutch neighbours, decided Belgium couldn’t miss the party. That’s not the only country that’s moved its position either: Slovenia’s RTV SLO announced yesterday that they planned to meet with the EBU around returning in 2027. Rather than the problem being Israel, or press freedom in Gaza, or the transparency of the Contest itself, they say that approving a financial plan is the main hurdle to climb.
The boycott isn’t totally broken. AVROTROS won’t be assisting the NPO in its entry next year, and Ireland has confirmed they’re not participating in or even broadcasting Eurovision while Israel remains. The director of Spain’s RTVE has recommended they stay out, but their Board hasn’t taken a final decision. Iceland is expected to vote soon, but that was a close call last time.
The unity that seemed to define that act of defiance, and the reasons they cited to take it, appears to have fallen by the wayside.
But given the strength of opinion in those statements, what has happened to make them change?
Back To Basics
For the EBU, the Dutch comeback was a very big deal. Yesterday, at a press event held quietly at the NPO’s HQ in Hilversum, their Director General and his deputy, Noel Curran and Jean Philip de Tender, respectively, were present. That wasn’t just to celebrate a country that contributes significantly to the Eurovision budget giving the show a major vote of confidence, but to influence what that vote of confidence represented.
During that event, Deputy Director General Jean Philip de Tender spoke to Dutch journalist GJ Kooijman about how the EBU brought the Netherlands back. His interview was in Dutch, but ESC Insight has translated excerpts into English for this article:
“There has always been an open and constructive attitude towards the broadcasters and what they want. I think we have been able to do that in a very constructive way now.”
From de Tender’s point of view, the criticisms that the Netherlands and other nations voiced about how the EBU had managed Eurovision weren’t borne from hate, but from love:
“Even if they did not participate, I feel that the broadcasters feel that the event is very close to their hearts. And working well together with as many countries as possible allowing participation has been a positive conversation between all parties.”
Notably, when Kooijman asked de Tender how he personally felt about the NPO competing, he recalled a telling piece of symbolism:
“I am particularly delighted that the Netherlands, which has actually been involved since 1956, when the Eurovision Song Contest was founded, is back this year.”
One of the original nations. There’s us looking back at simpler, purer times. Times that the vast majority of us weren’t alive to see.
But that’s precisely the thing. The Eurovision of 1956 was completely unrecognisable from the Contest we have now. It’s gone from a handful of countries with performers in formal eveningwear to a multi-coloured, multi-media entertainment property that means something different to every single one of its millions of viewers. De Tender alluded to that himself during his interview:
“I have been working at the EBU for more than ten years now and I have seen the festival grow during those years. From a traditional linear television program to an online event that is embraced by all generations and young people in particular.
So that shift from purely linear to digital to an experience beyond the nine o’clock show you see has been huge. The bigger it gets, the more impact it has and the more complex it becomes to organise something like this.”
And what’s missing from all this – is this something that the Dutch want? Since Joost Klein was infamously disqualified from the Contest in 2024, polls have shown that more Dutch people oppose their country participating than support it. Just because a new broadcaster has taken over from an old one doesn’t mean the country’s done a 180 – even if it might look that way.
While the EBU, VRT and the NPO have all talked about this Contest going back to basics, the basics are in the past. What’s “normal” is what fits the narrative. Eurovision’s job, as it always has been, is to redefine what normal means.
Birth Of A New Age
The EBU won’t intentionally take Eurovision backwards. It will hope to move it forwards while keeping the Contest’s feeling. That’s really the target here – and it’s what those boycotting broadcasters have been trying to bring back.
Over the last few months, several suggestions have been made, and in August, some were adopted. The winner of the Contest won’t automatically have the right to host next year. Now, countries involved in major conflicts can’t take Eurovision home. That excludes Israel, of course, but also excludes Ukraine.
In practice, though, it’s a wide clause that allows Eurovision to exercise some control over its location. If the winners can’t host for any reason, the EBU gets to pick the replacement, and they don’t have to stage the show on the winners’ behalf – no more Liverpools.
Jean Philip de Tender spoke about this new rule with that level of control in mind:
“I think safety is at the forefront…in the past, we could eliminate that, but that is often a complex story because you have to convince the broadcaster not to hold it there. That is now the other way around.”
The other way around, indeed. That doesn’t just give the EBU more control: it gives its member broadcasters more clarity. They now know that they won’t be in a position where they would have to compete at a Contest in a physically unsafe – or optically unsavoury – environment.
Risk management is also front-of-mind when it comes to voting. After the issues that have affected the Eurovision voting system in the last two years, which ESC Insight has extensively documented, it appears the time has come for it to be fundamentally reshaped.
Following a confirmation from the EBU to ESC Insight last month, de Tender told Kooijman that plans are advancing to move voting fully online, and force everyone to vote for more than a single entry:
“We are currently investigating it technically [to] examine what the impact is on those ways what we call motivated voting, voting behaviour that is not immediately related to the choice of a song.”
The Deputy Director-General also stated that they are currently trying to ensure the new system is in line with local laws:
“There are also a number of legal consequences we have to take into account the national legislation in each of the countries.”
Given they’ve reached that point, that new voting system appears to be increasingly likely. It’ll be fascinating to see what impact it makes – especially on how people split their votes, and what kinds of songs benefit and which don’t. But it’s revealing that the EBU feels they need to take such a radical approach to “place the original premise of the festival back at the centre”. Then again, voting changes haven’t hurt the Contest before.
Does that mean that we’ve moved too far away from it? Or that the centre has changed?
Is Home Where The Heart Is?
“The value of the Song Contest hasn’t changed, but it is back at the centre today. While perhaps undercut in recent years, it is a momentous event.”
Let’s analyse this in reverse order.
The Eurovision Song Contest is momentous, no doubt. That’s why the fight for what it means is so contested. Five broadcasters felt strongly enough that they were losing that battle to challenge the EBU to chart a future course without them. The changes to the rules, the conciliatory tone of yesterday’s comments, and the presence of top executives in the room for one of those countries making it home should tell you what they’re worth.
Those values have already been undercut in the eyes of many. For some? Irreparably. Journalists who used to write for this very website have decided the Contest is no longer for them. They may still love Eurovision, but they don’t love this Eurovision. While getting more countries to the table is fundamentally a good thing for the show as a whole – Canada will make their debut, North Macedonia will return and Hungary are almost certain to – some fans don’t see it as a win for their Eurovision.
They demand more than promises to win them round. It will take proof.
Going back to the centre is as possible as stepping back in time. The Eurovision Song Contest can’t reset the clock, and it can’t close Pandora’s Box. Even if Israel’s KAN were to be removed from the Contest – and that is not something the EBU’s members support – that won’t bring things back to the way they were. We’ve had three years of shows within that context, and that doesn’t make them worthless. Although, if they could turn back the clock, I wonder if the EBU would do anything differently – today’s comments suggest they might’ve.
And then we have the values of the Contest themselves. Those aren’t on solid ground, either. Many of the values associated with Eurovision today came from its fans and were co-opted into the show in a virtuous cycle. When those same people feel those values are no longer present, it becomes a doom loop. Last year, I made an episode of my podcast series Eurovision Uncovered all about the values of the Contest, and who gets to decide those. Spoiler: it’s us.
Eurovision Insight Presents… Eurovision Uncovered: A Show Shaped by Us
In that episode, Dr. Jack Shepherd, a Senior Lecturer at Mid-Sweden University who has done research into how those values are shaped, made the point more succinctly than I ever could:
“The EBU needs to kind of work out what it wants out of Eurovision. On the one hand, it could say, look, we just want to have an apolitical music contest. Well, then you need to ditch your values.”
The values that everyone’s referring to today are the ones the Contest accepts. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are the ones its audience believes. For that to be placed at the centre, there needs to be a wider conversation between those two sides as to what Eurovision really is, and what it could and should be. I’m planning to chat to some fans soon about whether they feel the Contest can go back to normal – and how.
What Is Normal Now?
Today, the Eurovision Song Contest is two countries better off than the day before. Others could follow. There’s a real chance we could see 40 countries compete in Burgas next year, maybe more. However you feel about those countries’ decisions, that would be a real milestone.
The current Eurovision team will be delighted. While it’s a low bar to clear, this is the biggest PR victory for them since Martin Green CBE took over as the Director of the Contest. They have every right to be happy. It’s also your right not to be.
There are some things we know about Eurovision. Those have always been far outnumbered by the things we don’t. Time will tell if what the EBU is promising – a realignment of the Contest’s aims and radical change to its foundations – will bring it back to former glories. Maybe that shouldn’t be the goal at all: the whole point of nostalgia is that it never happened that way. We move forward because we can’t go back.
Instead, it’s time to focus on what normal will be now. Whether it will be a bright, shining new era for the Song Contest that you and I want, or whether it’s fated to repeat its old mistakes.
But the idea of Eurovision being normal? You get to decide if that’s true.